[rodgerd]

> Ithkuil seems like what a language should be: as the article said, it is both precise and concise.

Language should be useful and expressive for its users. Human languages designed by the kind of people who prize simplicity and regularity above all other qualities tend to fail for much the same reason programming language designers are hurt and disappointed to discover C is still popular.

[yepguy]

Ithkuil is not simple. It's so ridiculously complex that it is just not possible for anyone to learn to speak fluently. It never stood any chance of being adopted in the way Esperanto has. I'm surprised that it found any use at all, but people without linguistics training seem to find it useful for discovering nuances in their own languages that they hadn't considered.

[dunmalg]

>people without linguistics training seem to find it useful for discovering nuances in their own languages that they hadn't considered.

Learning any foreign language will tend to do that, though. It's a function of being forced to consider your native tongue as a language, rather than just speaking it. Plus if you learn a foreign language, you will have the advantage of being able to talk to an established base of people who speak it.

[yepguy]

Yes but Ithkuil is a bit unique in that it decided to include as many grammatical distinctions as possible.